Louis Jenrel

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@MTClassical Dissolving the political bands connecting you to one country and assuming in relation to it the same *separate* and equal station you maintain with the rest of the world seems to mean that you have in fact enmeshed yourself in intimate political bands with everyone.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

I wonder to what extent this was just a response to an experienced problem? I recall awhile ago some lady who ran the admissions dept at, I think, MIT was busted for inventing qualifications and working there for decades. Similar and neighboring institutions probably learned from that. Perhaps Cambridge will start vetting now.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@jakesyma @PhilWMagness @docMJP Not directly, but we have dug a little deeper here and I think something like this sits underneath the surface of the thread to which I originally replied.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@jakesyma @PhilWMagness @docMJP To address the serious core of your post, no I don't think they tend to be equivalent, but I have seen enough bad in peer review and good outside of it to conclude that I shouldn't let it substitute for my own judgment.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@jakesyma @PhilWMagness @docMJP I assess arguments I come across--it's magical.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@jakesyma @PhilWMagness @docMJP Yet you have time for this pointless back and forth.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@jakesyma @PhilWMagness @docMJP No, I think I declined to shift my position to your standard of measure.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@dnduplessie Couldn't the goal be to both democratize and elevate the students?

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@jakesyma @PhilWMagness @docMJP Plenty of stupid shit does get published in "good journals" because a "good journal" is established by reputation, which may or may not correspond to reality. Those who determine reputation are not, despite naive beliefs to the contrary, necessarily good judges.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

Do you think if I were only aware of the stuff I like that the garbage would disappear? Do you think that the stuff one doesn't like is somehow not "peer reviewed" nor considered "scholarship" by the field? Do you somehow doubt that an army of mediocrities will sit at the dinner table tonight exclaiming their credibility because they are published scholars--many of them in high ranked journals or at university presses?

It doesn't take much effort to scan the scene to see that even in what are considered highly ranked journals terrible pieces are commonly published. Because I can see the obvious, I am not persuaded by anyone who boasts about their peer reviewed pubs. Maybe they are good, maybe they aren't. I'd rather hear the argument.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@jakesyma @PhilWMagness @docMJP Why don't you play around with google and search for dumb shit that gets published or just take a look around twitter for a second to see all of the plagiarists and frauds who have gotten tenure. Silly.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@jakesyma @PhilWMagness @docMJP And my point is that if you consider a vast amount of scholarship you will see that the bar is in the floor, which means that peer reviewed publications in and of themselves cannot lend any credibility.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@PhilWMagness @docMJP Probably true of most academic niches, depending on what is in fashion. And it has no bearing on the problem with your suggestion that peer reviewed publications are more excellent or credible.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@PhilWMagness @docMJP Lots of Straussian work, much of it with spooky numerological elements, has been published by major university presses and journals in political science. Odd thing to say.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

To be more clear i hope: saying one has peer reviewed work held in high esteem by some group of people doesn't vouch in any way for that work. Many blog posts are much better than much peer reviewed work, which means we are in need of a different standard for judgment (probably reading and engaging with the actual work) if we are to talk to one another. I guess we could also just stay in our niche and dismiss everyone else--whatever.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@PhilWMagness @docMJP On what basis do you say that? Plenty of peer reviewed stuff is nonsensical, fraudulent, or laden with basic mistakes shared by the publication's academic niche. You seemed earlier to dismiss Straussian numerology or whatever, for instance.

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@PhilWMagness @docMJP Glad we can agree that the Straussian numerology is not good by virtue of being published by a wide range of highly esteemed publications. And neither is your work (which may still be good after all).

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@docMJP @PhilWMagness A lot of good peer reviewed stuff exists, but the fact that so much of it is total garbage has me wondering why it would be a mark of excellence

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@LemeKoer @portugassis The worst part of the game

[Louis Jenrel @cakeisruined]

@SohrabAhmari Montesquieu, who many founders rated highly, was always retuning to the Romans

SoTL 11.13